Sri Swarup Saha vs The
2021 Latest Caselaw 665 Tri

                                Page 1 of 7


                     HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                           AGARTALA
                        WP(C) 210 OF 2021

1.Sri Swarup Saha,S/o Lt. Satish Chandra Das,
Resident of Nalgaria, P.O. & P.S. Ranirbazar,
Dist. West Tripura.

2.Sri Sanjib Kumar De,S/o Lt. Harendra Ch.De,
Resident of Dhaleswar Road No.1, near Ananyana Beauty Parlour,
P.O. Dhaleswar, P.S. East Agartala, Dist. West Tripura.

                                                              ....Petitioners
                                   Vrs.

1. The State of Tripura, represented by the Commissioner & Secretary to
the Government of Tripura, Education (Higher) Department,
Civil Secretariat, Capital Complex, P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. East Agartala,
Dist. West Tripura, Pin-799006.

2. The Director of Higher Education, Government of Tripura,
Old Secretariat Complex, P.O. Agartala, Dist. West Tripura.

3. Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Tripura, New Secretariat
Complex, Gorkha Basti, P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. East Agartala,
Dist. West Tripura.

4. Principal, Tripura Institute of Technology, Narsingarh,
P.O. & P.S. Airport, Pin-799009, Dist. West Tripura.
                                                             ...Respondents

                           WP(C) 211 OF 2021

1.Sri Litan Bardhan, S/o Lt. Rati Bardhan, resident of Narayanpur,
P.O. & P.S. Airport, Dist. West Tripura.

2.Sri Ajit Das, S/o Lt. Umesh Ch. Das, resident of Alanganagar,
P.O. & P.S. Airport, Dist. West Tripura.

3.Sri Swapan Biswas, S/o Sri Kanai Biswas, resident of Narshinghar,
South Bahadhi, P.O. & P.S. Airport, Dist. West Tripura.

                                                              ....Petitioners
                                 Page 2 of 7


                                   Vrs.

1. The State of Tripura, represented by the Commissioner & Secretary to
the Government of Tripura, Education (Higher) Department,
Civil Secretariat, Capital Complex, P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. East Agartala,
Dist. West Tripura, Pin-799006.

2. The Director of Higher Education, Government of Tripura,
Old Secretariat Complex, P.O. Agartala, Dist. West Tripura.

3. Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Tripura, New Secretariat
Complex, Gorkha Basti, P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. East Agartala,
Dist. West Tripura.

4. Principal, Tripura Institute of Technology, Narsingarh,
P.O. & P.S. Airport, Pin-799009, Dist. West Tripura.

                                                             ...Respondents
Present:
    For the petitioner (s)    : Mrs. S. Deb(Gupta), Advocate.

     For the respondent (s)   : Mr. D. Sharma, Addl. G.A.
                                Mr. M. Debbarma, Addl. G.A.

              HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
05.07.2021
                        Judgment & Order (Oral)

             Since common question of facts and law are involved, both the

writ petitions are taken up together for disposal at the admission stage

itself.

2.           Heard Mrs. S. Deb (Gupta), learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. Sharma and Mr. M. Debbarma, learned

Addl. G.A. appearing for the State-respondents.
                                   Page 3 of 7


3.             The petitioners herein, have prayed for their regularization

upon completion of 10 years of service as casual workers under the

respondents.

4.             Facts

in brief are that the State of Tripura has introduced a

scheme for regularization of the service of Daily Rated Workers (DRW),

Casual, Contingent, etc. workers who had completed 10 years of

continuous service under the State-respondents or its instrumentalities. In

WP(C) No.210 of 2021, the petitioner No.1 was engaged on 01.01.2005

and the petitioner No.2 was engaged on 25.05.2006 as casual workers. In

WP(C) No. 211 of 2021 the petitioner No.1 was engaged on 09.10.2003,

petitioner No.2 was engaged on 13.10.2003 and the petitioner No.3 was

engaged on 01.01.2004 as casual workers under the Tripura Institute of

Technology, one of the educational institutions under the Directorate of

Higher Education, Govt. of Tripura. The petitioners have completed 10

years of service without any interruption. Similarly situated casual workers

of the same institution filed writ petitions upon completion of their 10 years

of services and the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court after allowing their

petitions had issued directions upon the State-respondents to regularize the

services of those similarly situated persons.

5. The petitioners have brought on records two writ petitions

bearing WP(C) No.201/2020 [titled as Sri Biplab Bhowmik and Anr. Vrs.

The State of Tripura & Ors.], WP(C) No. 229/2015 [titled as Sri Sajal

Kar & Ors. Vrs. The State of Tripura & Ors.] and one writ appeal bearing

WA No.115/2016 [titled as The State of Tripura & Ors Vrs. Sri Sajal Kar

& Ors.]. The writ appeal as stated, preferred by the State, being allowed by

the order of learned Single Judge in WP(C) 229/2015, was dismissed by a

Division Bench of this Court in which I was one of the members.

6. I have perused the records and also considered the submission

of Mrs. S. Deb (Gupta), learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.

7. Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. has submitted that the

petitioners were engaged under a scheme of MHRD, Govt. of India.

8. This issue has already been settled by a single Bench of this

Court (Akil Kureshi, CJ) in WP(C) 201/2020 (supra), in the manner as

follows:-

"...The main stand taken by the respondents in a detailed affidavit dated 11.09.2020 is that the petitioners were engaged under a centrally funded scheme therefore they are not entitled to be regularized. With respect to the decision of this Court in W.P. (C) No.229 of 2015, in case of Sri Sajal Kar and others vs. The State of Tripura and others, the respondents contend that those petitioners, who were engaged prior to 31.03.2003 whereas both the petitioners in the present case have been engaged after the said date. The relevance of the said cutoff date of 31.03.2003 is sought to be projected on the basis of the Memorandum dated 21.01.2009 issued by the Government of Tripura in which after laying down the terms for regularization of casual workers and DRWs, it has been further provided as under:

"3. There shall be a complete ban on engagement of DRW/Casual/Contingent etc. workers after 31.3.2003 without concurrence from Finance Department. Responsibility shall be fixed on the official found responsible for any irregular engagement henceforth. Such irregular engagement shall have to be instantly terminated. The wages, if paid any, shall be recovered from the official concerned."

To my mind, there is no material distinction in the facts of the present petition as compared to those involved in the case of Sri Sajal Kar and others (supra). The learned Single Judge was also confronted with a question of the casual labourers being engaged under a Scheme which incidentally was the same Scheme under which the present petitioners have been engaged. In the said decision, it was observed as under:

"19. The benevolent scheme for regularisation of such casual workers cannot be frustrated by the technical approach of this nature, rather, it should be read liberally else there would be great injustice. Hence, it is necessary that the petitioners are considered for regularisation under the scheme as reflected by the memorandum dated 01.09.2008 read with the memorandum dated 03.01.2014 as stated.

20. It has clearly transpired that the petitioners have always been treated as the casual worker of Polytechnic Institute, now the Tripura Institute of Technology and their services were accordingly realised. Still they are so working. Even similarly circumstanced person, namely Dipak Das who has been regularised, was also the casual worker of the Community Polytechnic. Thus, the difference as had been made between Dipak Das and the petitioners is not based on intelligible differentia for purpose of relegating the mandate under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hence, in the considered opinion of this court, the petitioners are entitled to be considered by the respondents for regularisation under the memorandum dated 01.09.2008, as amended from time to time.

21. Having held so, the respondents are directed to consider the regularisation of the petitioners in terms of the memorandum under No.F.10(2)-FIN(G)/2008(Part) dated 01.09.2008 (Annexure-R/1 to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents) read with the memorandum dated 03.01.2014 (Annexure P18 to the writ petition) and such consideration shall be made within a period of 3(three) months from today, in supercession of the communication dated 01.07.2014 (Annexure- P/23 of the writ petition).

22. In the result the writ petition is allowed to be extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs."

The said decision of the learned Single Judge was tested before the Division Bench and the Writ Appeal was dismissed. The decision was also implemented and the concerned workers have been regularized. The sole distinction sought to be drawn by the State Government that the present petitioners, were engaged after 31.03.2003 in comparison to the other employees, who were regularized, who were engaged before 31.03.2003 is also in the

context of the present case not valid. Paragraph-3 of the O.M. dated 21.01.2019 merely provides that there will be a ban on engagement of DRW or Casual or Contingent workers after 31.03.2003 without the concurrence of the Finance Department. This clause cannot be enforced to deny the benefit of the Scheme of regularization in favour of the petitioners when they were admittedly engaged under centrally funded Scheme. It was not a case where in defiance of the fiscal discipline sought to be imposed by the State Government, the concerned unit or the institute engaged casual workers at its own will. It is a case where under an ongoing centrally funded scheme, the petitioners were engaged for casual work and such casual engagement went on almost unabated for years together."

9. In my considered opinion, the instant case of the petitioners

and the reliefs claimed for by them are similar and identical to those of the

petitioners of the aforesaid writ petitions, and thus, the petitioners are

entitled to get similar relief as provided to other casual workers of the same

institution referred to here-in-above.

10. It is transpired from Annexure-8 to the WP(C) No.210/2021

that the Principal, Tripura Institute of Technology, Narsingarh vide his

communication dated 31st December, 2020 addressed to the Director of

Higher Education, Govt. of Tripura, Agartala forwarded all the information

relating to the services of various DRWs/Casual Workers.

11. It is further revealed that there is financial concurrence in the

matter of the service of the petitioners as Casual Workers. In view of this,

there is no reason to deny the reliefs claimed for by the petitioners in their

writ petitions. Opportunities were provided to the State-respondents to file

reply, but, till today they have not been able to file reply.

12. Since the instant cases are well covered by the judgments of

this Court, I do not find any reason to deny the claims as sought for by the

petitioners in these writ petitions.

13. Accordingly, both the writ petitions before this court filed by

the petitioners are allowed. The respondents are directed to regularize the

services of the petitioners in terms of the Government scheme dated

01.09.2008 and other schemes, if any made thereafter. Needless to say, the

petitioners shall be entitled to all financial benefits on regularisation with

effect from the date of this judgment and order. The necessary exercise for

regularization as indicated here-in-above shall be completed within 2(two)

months from the date of this judgment.

The writ petitions accordingly stand disposed.

JUDGE